All of you anti-AR guys should just stop shooting big bucks since you don't care about the quality of bucks in your county.

Awesome logic right there. I guess it just pizzes some folks off when one of us anti-AR guys shoots a big buck and yet still hate ARs. I have some big buck mounts on my wall that were taken pre-ARs...so why should I have to like ARs? By the way, I shot each one of them because they walked out in front of me, not because I was out to shoot a big buck. Icing on the cake is what they were.

Only one problem with that one, white-tailed and mule deer do not have horns, they have antlers. Horns are permanent, antlers are shed/lost each year and new ones grown.

Hi Chris.

Howdy back at ya!

You hunting this weekend or have other plans? Hope it's a good one for you and stay safe! Can't ask for better weather!

Son got a doe last wknd. (sausage is safe)

I may go out but don't plan on shooting anything cept (hog, "kyotee";o)

I'm just not as mad at 'em as I used to be. Might rattle and take pics.

Gotta lot of work to do this wknd, too.

Good luck to ya,

Phish-TX
ARs still suck,

As much as I hate to say it I agree. ARs are a science, they have proven that they will produce better quality bucks. Sure there are some deer that need killed that get protected but overall they do work.

Really ARs are a common sense thing. It is common sense that if you let nice young bucks live and kill crappy ones then your deer quality will improve. I personally don't see why you would want to kill a under 13" buck unless it was a old cull.

I don't buy the premise that Gov't should be able to tell me which deer I can shoot. (Like which car I can drive or which light bulb I have to use.)

Letting bucks get older doesn't improve the "quality" of the buck. The quality is inherent to the buck. Let bucks get older just gets you mature bucks.

Letting bucks get older for sure does improve their quality as far as horns go. It's crazy to say they don't get better with age

This just gets you mature bucks and bigger antlers.
The quality is inherent to the buck whether it is killed as a fawn or as a 9 year old.

Why should I have to hunt according to what someone else thinks is a quality buck.

To me quality isn't 13" and above. It is the deer, buck or doe, that God put in front of me kill and eat.

The premise for AR's as I understood it was to get a more mature herd. Thus a better breeding and diverse age structured herd.
The antlers get bigger with age, the buck gets bigger, up to a point, with age, but the "quality" is in the genes and age does not affect the genes.

If all you care about "quality" wise is the taste of the meat then why the hell do you care about bucks anyways Does are the better eating as well as the 1.5yr old spikes and you can still kill them.

I love to eat deer meat so I kill does every year. Why would I kill a 12" wide buck, or even want to for that matter, to eat when I could kill a doe/

True, but what good does that quality gene do when every deer with it gets killed at 1.5, 2.5 ,3.5 yrs old before it can even begin to reach it's potential

It's all about the head bones!

First, Antler restrictions are not a science, they are a stab in the dark, as a solution for a qualitative problem. Try as they may, it's not a solution if there wasn't a problem to begin with.

They know they have flawed data collection methods and data sets, and that trying to take regional level data and make local level decisions from it is pure horsehockey.

I do agree with them that they need more investment into data collection and sampling, and analysis, at lower levels. RMU's didn't even exist for the pre-AR data, yet they have been "arranged" by that data.

I don't doubt that selective harvest criterion may help in some areas. What I still can't understand is how someone that sees it helping on their place, is so sure and positive that its a great thing everywhere?

What I am going off of isn't data collected by harvest records or anything like that. I am going off of what I was told from multiple wildlife biologists. They weren't saying they agreed with them because that is what the state wanted them to think. They have worked on the same WMA for years, pre ARs until now and they all said that the deer have gotten bigger in the area

And the whole idea of ARs is a science. Genetics and breeding is a science whether you treat it like one or not

I guess the bottom line is, the hunters that would like to shoot a buck with large antlers out number the hunters that don't care how big the rack is. And the good news is, if you don't like it where your at, then hunt some where else.

We were against the AR at first when it was implemented in our county now 3 years ago. BUT, over time we have noticed a huge difference in the type of deer that come through our doors. Prior to AR it used to be mainly 2 1/2 deer with small racks. Now we don't ever see a deer under 3 1/2 and they are rare. The majority of bucks now is 4 1/2 and up with racks measuring in the 130's and up. Best part is, those are deer from the exact same places that used to bring in those little 2 1/2 year olds. We ourselves shot the two best bucks we had ever seen on our place 2 years ago. One was 128 and the other 132 gross. AR does work if it is given time. Now everyone has the chance for a big buck including the youth hunters.

But age doesn't improve the genes, breeding does. True letting them get older lets them breed more but their are too many variables to have a selective breeding program for the entire state of Texas. Sheer hubris.

Why couldn't the "neighbor shoots my deer" crowd have "hunted somewhere else.........Before this regulation was passed?

Instead of asking TPWD to make up some data to make it look like there was an Age Structure problem, and try to justify "neighbors shooting deer" as a Scientific herd problem.

Now all we have is a bunch of "Neighbors Shoot my deer" whiners crowing at a BAD Regulation...and a State wildlife department that look like idiots.

Wow, people you must realize that that we as avid somewhat educated hunters are not the vast majority of the people who hunt. I wish it was so. The AR's are in place for the people with poor judgement. I say that because in my experience the people who just dont care are still going to kill what they want anyway law be damned. Yes, there will be bucks that will walk because of AR's that shouldn't because of bad genes and there will be bucks harvested that shouldn't be because of ignorance or total disregard for anything except self gratification. When I was younger "Redneck" was not a bad word and I felt proud to be one. Now days its associated with "Ignorant Redneck" and the trash that makes up much of our state/nation. OK im rambling and will shut up before it gets ugly. Thats not my intention. But where do you want to be classified.

These statements do not apply to all so when you get on your soapbox in a minute remember that.

Edited because I cant spell (ignorant redneck?)

I don't know...I don't like AR's mainly because it is government intervention.

We will always have rules and regulaions....but I just don't like unnecessary ones that basically satisfies those who want others to have to hunt like them. Like Sig and Phish have stated...there's no REAL proof or good studies to back up the need for manditory ARs. Sig has a bus load full of the so called TP&W data.